Birmingham City Council (202408574)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408574

Birmingham City Council

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. a leak.
2. mould in her home.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a 2 bedroom house and has been a secure tenant of the landlord since November 2013.
The resident reported that a leak was coming from her bathroom on 1 March 2024. The landlord attended twice over the following weeks and noted that it was unable to gain access. It attended again on 24 March 2024, and completed the repair. Records shows that the leak had been caused by a loose pipe, that did not have a rubber seal.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 March 2024. She said:
1. she had reported the leak several times. The landlord would attend outside of the appointment timeslots that it provided her, for example either too early or too late. It had taken her kitchen ceiling to collapse for the landlord to resolve the leak.
2. the rubber seal was not placed in the pipe when the landlord fitted the new [bathroom] sink which had caused the leak. She said that the landlord did not sign off the works when the bathroom was replaced.
3. the leak had damaged her cooker and microwave. There was black mould in her kitchen, back bedroom, and bathroom as a result of the leak.
4. she was suffering from mental health concerns and breathing conditions and felt that they were caused by the mould.
On 9 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had attended to repair the leak on 4 and 14 March 2024, but it was unable to gain access. It said that it had resolved the leak on 24 March 2024.
On the same day the resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated her previous concerns and added that she had been reporting the leak for 5 years. She said she had evidence by way of repair references and photos of the damage.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response. It said:
1. the reported leaks during the 5 year period were attended to and resolved in line with its policy. Each repair had addressed a separate issue and was unrelated to the March 2024 leak.
2. the resident had reported damp within her home in October 2023, it was unable to gain access when it attended.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service for further investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained that the mould in her property affected her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we will however consider the resulting distress and inconvenience on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak

The landlord’s repair policy states that all responsive repairs should be carried out by appointment. It offers residents morning (am) or afternoon (pm) appointments.
In her formal complaint, the resident stated that the landlord would attend outside of the appointment timeslot that it had given her.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had attended on 4 and 14 March 2024 and it was unable to gain access on both occasions. While the evidence supports the landlord’s account, the resident did not dispute that it had attended, rather she explained that it did so outside of its provided timeslot. And as such, she was not available to provide access. It is acknowledged that on occasion an operative or contractor may arrive slightly outside of appointed times. This is not always indicative of a failing. However, given the resident’s comments, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to try to establish what had happened on these respective days.
Within her complaint, the resident also expressed concern that the landlord did not fit the required rubber seal in the pipe when it had upgraded her bathroom several years prior. She said that it not doing so had caused the leak and it had not appropriately signed off the work at the time of the upgrade. The landlord did not address these concerns in its complaint responses either. This was inappropriate. This meant that the resident’s concerns went unanswered.
The resident had expressed concern that the leak could have been prevented and the landlord should have taken steps to investigate this further. That it did not was a missed opportunity and a failing. The landlord could also have referred the matter to its insurer to make a decision as to liability. This would have ensured that the resident’s concerns had been given due consideration.
The resident also stated that the leak damaged her cooker and microwave. This matter could also have been address through a liability claim. Again, this would have ensured that the matter was appropriately investigated and the resident’s concern would have been addressed. As such a referral was not made, the resident’s concerns about damage to her belongings was left unaddressed. This was inappropriate.
In the resident’s escalated complaint, she said that she had been reporting the leak for 5 years. In its response, the landlord said that there were 3 reported leaks in 2019 and 1 reported leak in 2022. It detailed the cause of the leaks which included a leak from a bathroom tap and one in a bedroom. It also explained that the leaks during that period were unrelated to the March 2024 leak. The landlord’s response has been corroborated by the records provided to this Service. Its response in relation to this specific concern was appropriate and demonstrated that it had given the resident’s concern due consideration.
The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s concern that the landlord had failed to identify the cause of the leak during the 5 year period led to her kitchen ceiling collapsing in March 2024. However, the landlord’s repair logs, and the evidence provided demonstrates that it appropriately investigated the reported leaks at that time.
However, it is noted that the resident told the landlord that she had repair references that demonstrated that the leak had been ongoing for many years. The evidence does not suggest that the resident provided the landlord with this information. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to request further information. However, given that it considered that it had sufficient evidence within its records to satisfy itself that it had responded appropriately to reports it had received this was not a failing.
Overall, the landlord failed to reasonably:
1. investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns that it attended outside of the appointment timeslots that it had provided her.
2. address the resident’s concern that it did not sign off the bathroom replacement works appropriately.
3. address the resident’s concerns that the landlord caused the leak because it failed to install a rubber seal in the pipe when it upgraded her bathroom.
4. address the resident’s concerns that the leak caused damage to her appliances.
We have therefore concluded that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report of a leak appropriately. We have therefore found that there was maladministration by the landlord. The above failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and resulted in her referring her complaint to this Service for further consideration. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her home

The landlord’s repair policy states routine repairs would be completed within 30 days of them being reported.
The resident reported that there was black mould in her kitchen, back bedroom, and bathroom in her March 2024 formal complaint. However, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to or investigated her report. The Ombudsman’s October 2022 Damp and Mould Spotlight report states that landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely. The landlord’s failure to investigate meant that no action was taken to resolve the issue while the resident continued to live with mould in her home. This would have caused her distress and inconvenience. Therefore, while the reason that the landlord did not investigate the resident’s report of mould in her home at this time is unclear, that it did not was unreasonable.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s report in its May 2024 stage 1 complaint response. This was a missed another opportunity and left some of the resident’s concerns unaddressed.
The resident told the landlord that her home was “covered” in mould in her escalated complaint. In its response the landlord stated that she had reported damp in her home in October 2023, but it was unable to gain access. Its response was inadequate. While the resident may have reported mould 2023, she had reported it again and this warranted some inspection. Given that the resident had informed the landlord that her home was “covered” in mould, it would have been reasonable for it to have taken steps to investigate the matter. There is no evidence that it did. This was a failing and a departure from the guidance as set out in our spotlight report.
We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of mould within her home. The evidence provided to this Service does not suggest that any investigation has been undertaken into the resident’s reports. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 15 working days, and it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 May 2024. This meant that it issued its response within 30 working days. This was a significant deviation from its own policy timescales. The reason for the delayed response is unclear, but there is nothing to suggest that it was unavoidable. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the landlord notified the resident that its response would be delayed. That was unreasonable. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the landlord should have agreed an extension with the resident prior to missing the deadline for a response. That the landlord did not take such action was a failing.
As set out above, the resident had raised a number of concerns which should reasonably have prompted the landlord to refer the resident to its insurer. Had it done so, a formal liability decision as to whether the leak could have been avoided and in relation to the resident’s damaged belongings could have been made. As the landlord did not do so, the resident was not appropriately signposted and her concerns were not investigated further. This was a significant failing in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. issue its stage 1 complaint response within its own timescales.
2. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
3. refer the resident to its insurers and signpost her to support agencies.
This caused the resident distress and inconvenience. Therefore, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £600 compensation, which is comprised of:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported leak.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its resident’s reports of mould in her home.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. contact the resident to ascertain whether the mould in her home has been resolved. If not, it should investigate the matter in line with its repairs policy.
4. refer the resident to its insurer, should she agree, so that a liability decision can be made regarding:
  1. the cause of the leak.
  2. damage to the resident’s belongings.
  3. injury to the resident’s health.
5. remind staff that complaints should be responded to within its complaints policy timescales. If an extension is required, residents should be reasonably updated, in line with the Code. It should also remind them that all aspects of a complaint should be addressed.